The basic idea is that each player takes on the role of a scholar, from before scholarly pursuits became professionalized (or possibly after they ceased to be). You are cranky, opinionated, prejudiced and eccentric. You are also collaborating with a number of your peers -- the other players -- on the construction of an encyclopedia describing some historical period (possibly of a fantastic world).
The game is played in 26 turns, one for each letter of the alphabet.
1. On the first turn, each player writes an entry for the letter 'A'. You come up with the name of the entry, and you write 100-200 words on the subject. At the end of the article, you sign your name, and make two citations to other entries in the encyclopedia. These citations will be Phantoms -- their names exist, but their content will get filled in only on the appropriate turn.
2. On the second and subsequent turns, you continue to write entries for B, C, D and so on. However, you need to make three citations. One must be a reference to an already-written entry, and two must be to unwritten entries.
It's an academic sin to cite yourself, you can never cite an entry you've written. Same deal for writing a phantom that you created, not allowed. (OOC, this forces the players to intertwingle their entries, so that everybody depends on everyone else's facts.)
3. Despite the fact that your peers are self-important, narrow-minded dunderheads, they are honest scholars. No matter how strained their interpretations are, their facts are accurate as historical research can make them. So if you cite an entry, you have to treat its factual content as true! (Though you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation.)
4. When you cite a Phantom, write it <<like this>>. The Moderator will compile a list of Phantoms when he logs in every day. After a Phantom has been written, the person who originally cited it (or a moderator) will edit the citing entry to link them together.
5. The subject of this Lexicon is as follows:
"Symposium Mandated Bibliognostic 'Cyclopedia: A Compendium of Knowledge on the Weiner Forums, as written by the Scholars and Descendants thereof"
It is written a good two centuries after the forums died, but there is one important caveat to this: At NO TIME should there be a definite date regarding the death of the Forums. Infractions of this rule will lead to deletion of the offending entry as well as ten points being docked from the Author's final score.
One point is awarded for participation in each turn.
Fifteen points will be awarded at the end of the game for the Featured Entry, as voted by the players.
Ten points deducted for failure to abide by rule 5.
Gold Stars awarded as Moderator sees fit.
This is very much how I would like it to play out, yes. I'm not going to be a stickler for keeping the entries free from bias, but I would like them to be as objective as possible.Oldrac the Chitinous wrote: Are you envisioning this game working like the example insofar as we each take on the role of some competing faction, and append some biased commentary to each of our objective enycylopedic entries?
At the beginning of each round, available topics will be listed and people will get to pick. If you can't come up with a topic, let the GM know, so he can assign one to you. Phantoms are picked on a first-come, first-served basis, although players can call dibs on a topic in the citing entry's comments. Players can only call dibs on one topic at a time.Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Are we going to know before each round starts what the subjects of other peoples' articles are?
If an entry flatly contradicts the events set down in another entry, the one that was posted first is the official entry. The offending player must correct his entry. More often than not, though, seemingly contradictory entries can be reconciled with the rest with the proper application of spin (or judicious editing). Remember, if you can rationalise it to the satisfaction of the community, it's a part of history.Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Is there a way to deal with contradictory information that comes up in one round?
Cirtur has questions:
If anybody is nice enough to provide hosting for the Wiki itself, yes.Cirtur wrote:Will this be a wiki at the end of the game?
Assuming we can raise enough money, yes.Cirtur wrote:Is there a prize for the winner?
I was hoping to publish a hardcopy of the SMBCyclopedia, and sending it to the winner.Cirtur wrote:What is the prize?
Well, that's an obstacle that can be solved by having everyone chip in for the cost.Cirtur wrote:Shipping to the UK is quite expensive so...you know?
I would suggest a prominent location, like on your coffee table. Perhaps a bookshelf, but that's just a silly place to store what will turn out to be a comprehensive history of the best forum in existence.Cirtur wrote:Well I guess if you're all clubbing together to buy me it then it's ok but where would I put it?
We couldn't afford real gold-plating, so we just painted him gold. Also there's really not much difference between a rent boy and a hobo, right?Cirtur wrote:And what would I use a gold plated rent boy for?
Oldrac the Chitinous